The problem is that participants in the political struggle should not get into edit wars. In the summer I found it very important to factually improve the OOXML article that I wanted to be 'political neutral'. The problem is of course that people which have the appropriate knowledge took sides. You usually want to leave editing the wikipedia article to neutral observers but what do you do if the article is obviously hijacked by a party? Some Wikipedia editors entered pro-OOXML marketing gibber into the Open XML text that was not appropriate for a wikipedia article and aggressively defended the text against changes from en passent editors. In most cases this didn't improve the quality and made people angry. For instance the article contained slander against IBM which is possible for a campaign site or a blog but not for a wikipedia article. I found the wikipedia edit wars as an excellent method of the opponent to recruit new supporters for us.
They seem to have a ideal text and after any changes they move back into the direction of this text. For instance:
In 2004, governments and the European Union recommended to Microsoft that they publish and standardize their XML Office formats through a standardization organization.[5]
It was corrected several times as its factually wrong. The Commission didn't recommend, the EU IDABC Pegso committee did.
I guess some open source players will feel discomfort with beeing decribed as non-commercial:
The OSP enables both open source and commercial software to implement DIS 29500.
The article improved over time and will continue to improve, esp. when the political struggle is over.
It is again a tricky move to put the controversy in another article. And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML
needs indeed improvements. But no one should join it as a warrior looking to participate in the edit war. But rather as a person seeking to stick the warriors to the rules of the game.
